Petrov - can he play in a 4-4-2?

[Kiwivillan]

Also worth noting that when Mr Petrove finds his way into the opposition penalty area he makes stuff happen - even if he does not score much himself.

For him to be able to do that he needs to be sure that his midfield partner and his defence won't leave him stranded. I think Sidwell, for all his flaws, is a hard worker and has a good understanding with Petrov.

I said sometime last year, perhaps not on this site, maybe to a mate in the pub, that Petrov somtimes makes the most uncoordinated looking passes but very effective. This is how'd I'd class the pass for Gabby's penalty that should of been. Kinda ugly looking but very effective

[Jez]

So can we finally put the 4-4-2, Petrov and Sidwell antitheory to bed now? to be woken up at some point in the future when they have a bad game, when they will no doubt always have been crap together and can never pay in that formation again ever!

(please don't attempt answer this question)

In the same way can we put to bed that NRC is as shit as you say he is? We beat Liverpool with him playing in the side a long with a few other good results. Infact more than Sidwell and Petrov have played in a 4-4-2.

Also played some good passes in that game against top quality (!) opposition.

[barry'sboots]

Have to agree that Stan proved on Saturday that he can play in a 4-4-2.

My only negative comment is that I would have liked MON to have switched to a 4-5-1 with 20-25 mins left to close out the game. I still thought Stan looked a bit leggy (but he was entitled to after the hard work he had put in!) and we were starting to get cut open a bit by Chelski - who have the ability to do this with Lampard, Deco and Anelka - and I would have loved to have seen a bit more bit in CM with NRC's presence. I think Carew had become quite ineffective in there by that point anyway and NRC would have been a significantly more productive sub than Emil, leaving Gab up top to keep to keep Terry and Carvalho on full alert.

I also thought with 15 mins or so left Delph for Ash might have been on the cards to give us a bit more energy and have a go at Ivanovic who lloked really poor and unfit for a top footballer.

Now we have a squad, I wish MON would use it a bit more. Also would have given Ash and JC a rest and kept bench players happy.

[Edinburgh-Villa]

Have to agree that Stan proved on Saturday that he can play in a 4-4-2.

My only negative comment is that I would have liked MON to have switched to a 4-5-1 with 20-25 mins left to close out the game. I still thought Stan looked a bit leggy (but he was entitled to after the hard work he had put in!) and we were starting to get cut open a bit by Chelski - who have the ability to do this with Lampard, Deco and Anelka - and I would have loved to have seen a bit more bit in CM with NRC's presence. I think Carew had become quite ineffective in there by that point anyway and NRC would have been a significantly more productive sub than Emil, leaving Gab up top to keep to keep Terry and Carvalho on full alert.

I also thought with 15 mins or so left Delph for Ash might have been on the cards to give us a bit more energy and have a go at Ivanovic who lloked really poor and unfit for a top footballer.

Now we have a squad, I wish MON would use it a bit more. Also would have given Ash and JC a rest and kept bench players happy.

We kinda did switch to 4-5-1. Gabby went out right and Milner moved in for the last 10/15 or so.

Also, switching to 4-5-1 doesn't neccessarily close out the game. IMO, it allows the opposing team to sit higher up the pitch which doesn't always "relieve the pressure".

I think MON got it right, as the result, not speculation, proves.

[Kiwivillan]

Have to agree that Stan proved on Saturday that he can play in a 4-4-2.

My only negative comment is that I would have liked MON to have switched to a 4-5-1 with 20-25 mins left to close out the game. I still thought Stan looked a bit leggy (but he was entitled to after the hard work he had put in!) and we were starting to get cut open a bit by Chelski - who have the ability to do this with Lampard, Deco and Anelka - and I would have loved to have seen a bit more bit in CM with NRC's presence. I think Carew had become quite ineffective in there by that point anyway and NRC would have been a significantly more productive sub than Emil, leaving Gab up top to keep to keep Terry and Carvalho on full alert.

I also thought with 15 mins or so left Delph for Ash might have been on the cards to give us a bit more energy and have a go at Ivanovic who lloked really poor and unfit for a top footballer.

Now we have a squad, I wish MON would use it a bit more. Also would have given Ash and JC a rest and kept bench players happy.

We kinda did switch to 4-5-1. Gabby went out right and Milner moved in for the last 10/15 or so.

Also, switching to 4-5-1 doesn't neccessarily close out the game. IMO, it allows the opposing team to sit higher up the pitch which doesn't always "relieve the pressure".

I think MON got it right, as the result, not speculation, proves.

It is true though that in last third they had three one-on-ones that were failures more so because of abject finishing than anything else. Those runs all came through central midfield.

[barry'sboots]

Have to agree that Stan proved on Saturday that he can play in a 4-4-2.

My only negative comment is that I would have liked MON to have switched to a 4-5-1 with 20-25 mins left to close out the game. I still thought Stan looked a bit leggy (but he was entitled to after the hard work he had put in!) and we were starting to get cut open a bit by Chelski - who have the ability to do this with Lampard, Deco and Anelka - and I would have loved to have seen a bit more bit in CM with NRC's presence. I think Carew had become quite ineffective in there by that point anyway and NRC would have been a significantly more productive sub than Emil, leaving Gab up top to keep to keep Terry and Carvalho on full alert.

I also thought with 15 mins or so left Delph for Ash might have been on the cards to give us a bit more energy and have a go at Ivanovic who lloked really poor and unfit for a top footballer.

Now we have a squad, I wish MON would use it a bit more. Also would have given Ash and JC a rest and kept bench players happy.

We kinda did switch to 4-5-1. Gabby went out right and Milner moved in for the last 10/15 or so.

Also, switching to 4-5-1 doesn't neccessarily close out the game. IMO, it allows the opposing team to sit higher up the pitch which doesn't always "relieve the pressure".

I think MON got it right, as the result, not speculation, proves.

Look, I am as happy as the next Villa fan about this result but I think a CM three of Stan, NRC and Sidders with Gab up top would have been more secure - NRC was fresh for a start and is a better harrier than the other two (and Milner for that matter) IMO and Gabby up top on his own is better than JC or Emil on their own, again, IMO. As I said previously, I also thought that we should have done this against Citeh to counter the Stephen Ireland effect and we might have held on there and been two points better off and beaten three Big 5 sides.

I also disagree that a 4-5-1 necessarily invites teams on. If played with the right players it can push the opposition back as it frees up the wingers somewhat from defensive duties and can push the opposition FBs back. I think it would have been really useful here as Deco was starting to drift inside and give them a CM three. It was a hard last 15 minutes or so to watch and my nails and throat are definitely not what they were before the game. I would guess that, on possession/territory stats for the last 20 mins, Chelski had the lion's share - certainly how it felt from where I sat - and as such we were pushed back anyway.

Of course both this and my view for Citeh are speculation and we will never know but I am just expressing my view as to what I would have done for the last 20 minutes or so to make it harder for Chelski. As I said, they have some quality players and did carve us open a couple of times down the centre with Deco and Anelka squandering chances that, if they had been Gabby or Ash in the same situation, I would have been quite disappointed about.

I don't want to take away the positives of another Big 4 win but I am just stating that there are a couple of tactical things that I would have done differently from MON. I am just debating points around the Villa's play and can assure you that I want the same thing as you but might have different views as to how we should look to achieve them.

[Folski]

Friedel

Young Collins Dunne Warnock

Milner Petrov Delph

Gab Ash

Carew

That's the team I'm using in FIFA and its working very well!

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Well, that's two on the bounce against quality opposition that Stan has shone. I do think part of his early problems were not so much his own form lacking, but playing with the wrong partner. I like what I've seen from Delph, but I think he's too similar. Sidwell despite his faults is always full of running, he gives Petrov the space and time to pick the pass.

[MrDuck]

I don't want to take away the positives of another Big 4 win but I am just stating that there are a couple of tactical things that I would have done differently from MON.

Well thank God MON is manager and you're not.

We just deservedly beat the favourites to win the league, and still you're not happy. MON got everything right on saturday.

[Kiwivillan]

Well, that's two on the bounce against quality opposition that Stan has shone. I do think part of his early problems were not so much his own form lacking, but playing with the wrong partner. I like what I've seen from Delph, but I think he's too similar. Sidwell despite his faults is always full of running, he gives Petrov the space and time to pick the pass.

The difference in Petrov in the last two matches from I can see is he seems to be a lot fitter but there is a doubt and always will be of him lasting the full 90 in a 4-4-2.

[barry'sboots]

I don't want to take away the positives of another Big 4 win but I am just stating that there are a couple of tactical things that I would have done differently from MON.

Well thank God MON is manager and you're not.

We just deservedly beat the favourites to win the league, and still you're not happy. MON got everything right on saturday.

Would you still be saying this if Anelka and Deco had scored when they were clean through? Of course this is hypothetical but we could have drawn or lost on Saturday.

Do you think he got everything right against Citeh or Blackburn or Wigan?

No-one ever gets everything right, as far as I am aware, but admittedly MON is doing good things. Doesn't mean we can't improve.

You obviously disagree but don't assume I am not happy - I couldn't stop grinning all weekend, especially speaking to best mate who is a Cheslki fan.

[VillaChris]

Well player Stan, I think he's enjoyed the added responsibility in central midfield vacated by Barry tbh.

What I like is that he rarely loses the ball and will also slow the pace of the game down when in possession, similar to what Alonso did for Liverpool.

[Overdubber]

Like many posters here I also felt that Stan handled the midfield very well. Okay, tired towards the end, but still did a very good job.

If we had swithched to a 4-5-1 with fresh players we may have seen out the game better, but who knows?

I see teams like ManU , Chelsea and Arsenal constantly comming up against defensively orientated teams, particularly in the last 20 minutes or so. Funny enough these teams always come away with the win (or almost). The way to break these teams is go and attack them, the whole game. Sunderland did that last week at OT, and almost came away with a vital win, instead it turned out a lucky draw (for Utd.).

By always looking to attack Chelsea we took off some of the pressure they were willing to apply as their defence could not easily force up to the half way line.

I`m not really concerned about the set piece situation, as these kinds of goals are typical for some of these big games. 2 quality headers, that second one was faster than a bullet!

[barry'sboots]

What I like is that he rarely loses the ball and will also slow the pace of the game down when in possession, similar to what Alonso did for Liverpool.

I said earlier that I thought Stan had played really well but I question whether this trait of always slowing the pace down can be a negative when we play poorer teams that defend in numbers and where we are looking to use our pace through speedy counterattacking to get at these sides before they re-organise. One of my mates, who is a very keen footballer and does scout for Luton, remarked about this when he came to the Pompey game.

If we had swithched to a 4-5-1 with fresh players we may have seen out the game better, but who knows?

I see teams like ManU , Chelsea and Arsenal constantly comming up against defensively orientated teams, particularly in the last 20 minutes or so. Funny enough these teams always come away with the win (or almost). The way to break these teams is go and attack them, the whole game. Sunderland did that last week at OT, and almost came away with a vital win, instead it turned out a lucky draw (for Utd.).

By always looking to attack Chelsea we took off some of the pressure they were willing to apply as their defence could not easily force up to the half way line.

I would argue that 4-5-1 is not always defensive, particularly when it becomes 4-3-3 and if there is someone like Sidders with a good engine bursting to support the 1 knowing that there are still 2 CM'ers left behind him. Of course the teams quoted will often break down sides later on as the others tire from chasing the ball at the feet of better players. I don't think we would necessarily suffer this as we showed with 4-5-1 at Plop. I suspect if you looked at the stats for the last 20 mins or so Chelski would have had the lions share of possession and territory with our 4-4-2 as well. I am not even saying that this would have changed if we had gone 4-5-1 but I think that they would have found it more difficult to carve open our CM with an extra body in there and it might have released Ash and Jimmy more to support, preferably, Gabby.

[Maradona10]

I think you shouldn't really big up a guy whose a scout for Luton, as what the hell would he know!

[ml1dch]

Would you still be saying this if Anelka and Deco had scored when they were clean through? Of course this is hypothetical but we could have drawn or lost on Saturday.

Would you still be saying that he should have done things differently if we'd been given the penalty that we should have had and Carew had got his big toe slightly further forward and we'd beaten the team at the top of the league 4-1?

[MrDuck]

I don't want to take away the positives of another Big 4 win but I am just stating that there are a couple of tactical things that I would have done differently from MON.

Well thank God MON is manager and you're not.

We just deservedly beat the favourites to win the league, and still you're not happy. MON got everything right on saturday.

Would you still be saying this if Anelka and Deco had scored when they were clean through? Of course this is hypothetical but we could have drawn or lost on Saturday.

.

But they didn't score. And we didn't draw or lose. Hypotheticals are entirely meaningless here.

[briny_ear]

I'm definitely picking up early signs of the "we won but were lucky/rubbish" posts that we had to put up with for so many weeks last season. How anyone can say that about the Chelsea match is completely beyond me, to be honest.

[barry'sboots]

I think you shouldn't really big up a guy whose a scout for Luton, as what the hell would he know!

And your claim to footballing fame is? He is very knowledgeable fyi.

Hypotheticals are entirely meaningless here.

I would have thought a discussion forum, which I think is what VT is, would be the perfect place for hypothetical scenarios?

I'm definitely picking up early signs of the "we won but were lucky/rubbish" posts that we had to put up with for so many weeks last season. How anyone can say that about the Chelsea match is completely beyond me, to be honest.

I certainly haven't said this (not sure whether I am the accused or not). We were deservedly up and, as someone pointed out earlier, could have and maybe should have been up by more - definite penalty, JC could have scored and you could argue that Brad should have saved their goals. So it was a great performance. All I am saying is that we came into the last 20 minutes leading by the odd goal and I would have preferred it if MON had shut down the CM by adding in NRC and going 4-5-1. He didn't and I felt that they were able to cut through us a couple of times and, on another day, might have scored an equaliser. I feel that this was what happened against Citeh when they introduced Ireland and, if MON had responded to that by closing down the CM, we might have held on that night.

[Hanky]

So it was a great performance. All I am saying is that we came into the last 20 minutes leading by the odd goal and I would have preferred it if MON had shut down the CM by adding in NRC and going 4-5-1. He didn't and I felt that they were able to cut through us a couple of times and, on another day, might have scored an equaliser. I feel that this was what happened against Citeh when they introduced Ireland and, if MON had responded to that by closing down the CM, we might have held on that night.

Fair point but by the same token we could have put NRC on and he could have scored an own goal right at the end and could have cost us the win. All hypothetical of course.